Bruce Lipton’s ‘Biology of Belief’ – Annotated With Facts: Part 46 (In which I click publish before thinking of a title)

January 11, 2019

I really do have some other posts in the pipeline; some good ones, even. But for now, it’s back to Lipton Central.

Incredibly we’ve made it to Chapter Five. This is an average of about two and a half pages per post, with each post being about 1500 words. This adds up to about 65,000 words, or a book of about 270 pages. That includes the quotations from Lipton, but he has only written 33,000 in his entire book so far. I have written probably two thirds more just correcting the worst and stupidest errors, than he has so far.

We are on page 120, but the book actually started on page 10. The first ten pages were filled with acknowledgements. I decided not to burden readers with any of these, but I will note now that it includes the following:

The Muses of Science: I am indebted to the spirits of science, for I am fully aware that forces outside of myself have guided me in bringing this message to the world. Special blessings to my heroes, Jean-Baptiste de Monet de Lamarck and Albert Einstein, for their world-changing spiritual and scientific contributions.

Lamarck does not deserve Lipton’s blessings. He suffered enough in his life. And Lipton did him the insult of mistakenly attributing some of Darwin’s ideas to him. As for associating himself with Einstein, we recall that Lipton’s four or five attempts at saying what E=mc2 means (in the simplest of terms) all failed.

As for the “external forces” that guided Lipton in “bringing his message tot he world”, all I can do is ask them what exactly his message is. I can’t make head or tail of it, and I hope they think a little more carefully before they do something like this again.

And with a deep breath, we dive into the foaming sludge that is Chapter 5: Biology and Belief.

We can quickly skip through the opening story. In 1952 a certain Dr Albert Mason used hypnosis to treat a boy who had warts. The warts went away, and then Mason heard that the boy had been suffering from an incurable genetic condition called ichthyosis.

Everyone was excited, and Mason gained an entire career out of it, but he couldn’t cure anyone else suffering from it; nor from anything much else. Lipton explains his subsequent failure as being due to expectation creating a different attitude, which doesn’t work for healing incurable genetic illnesses. He does not consider the freaking goddam obvious, that the boy’s initial diagnosis had been mistaken.

But let’s be generous and allow the hypothetical miracle to stand. What advancements followed from it? Zip. Zero. Nada. Why not? Nobody in the alternative health industry — not a soul — has even bothered to try to find out. They have been too busy babbling about their one success. Who needs proof, after all, when you’ve got a good marketing department instead?

By reversing the symptoms using “only” the power of the mind, Mason and the boy had accomplished what had until that time been considered impossible.

But it is still considered impossible, as no one bothered to check if that’s really what happened, or even granting it was a remarkable cure, how exactly it worked. This does not occur to Lipton who is still too busy babbling about it 50 yeas later to even think about that.

How is it possible that the mind can override genetic programming, as it did in the case above? The New Biology suggests some answers to those questions.

Ah, I stand corrected! This book is supposed to be the foundation stone of the New Biology, so what’s he got?

We saw in the last chapter that matter and energy are entangled.

Factual error #1: we did not see that in the last chapter.

Factual error #2: they are not entangled.

The logical corollary….

….of a stupid pig-ignorant error will be further stupid pig-ignorant errors. To wit:

….is that the mind (energy) and body (matter) are similarly bound…

Okay, I was wrong. Lipton has thrown in a few extra pig-ignorant errors that are not logical corollaries.

Let me just take a moment to say something out loud and transcribe it here: what a fucking idiot this Lipton is.

He refers here, clearly and specifically and unequivocally and non-metaphorically to “energy” — the concept from physics. And he equates it with mind. Let that sink in.

His equally stupid and dangerous but less educated colleague Rhonda Byrne thinks that gravity and love are literally the same things. Now Lipton thinks that mind and energy are the same things.

What an idiot. What a stupid idiot. What a fool.

And the sentence is still wobbling on down the track.

…though Western medicine has tried valiantly to separate them for hundreds of years.

What does Lipton mean by this? Modern science would perhaps be better characterised as trying to unify body and mind, surely.

In the seventeenth century, Rene Descartes dismissed the idea that the mind influences the physical character of the body.

Excuse me? What? I haven’t read Descartes closely. Maybe he has some writings about this, but Lipton doesn’t mention any.

I can only assume that Lipton has completely misunderstood Descartes, who actually said the complete opposite of this. He did have soul and body separate, and saw the body as a machine, in a quite literal sense. He also indeed saw the soul as entirely immaterial and separate. But he claimed the soul could influence the body via the pineal gland, which he believed was anatomically suspended on fine threads, and so could resonate with the subtle winds of the spirit.

The anatomy of the pineal gland reveals no such threads, and the search for the ‘seat of soul’ in the brain continued for a few hundred years more. (Indeed some serious neuroscientists are still looking for it.)

Funnily, however, the idea of the pineal gland was attractive and marketable enough for it to be picked up by Madam Blavatsky in the mid 1800s and adopted into the canon of theosophy, where it was associated with the 6th chakra. It is still popular today in New Age spiritual teachings as well, despite being derived from the hated materialist, Descartes.

Descartes’ notion was that the physical body was made out of matter and the mind was made out of an unidentified, but clearly immaterial substance.

Yep. A passably factual statement. Goodness me.

Because he couldn’t identify the nature of the mind, Descartes left behind an irresolvable philosophical conundrum: since only matter can affect matter, how can an immaterial mind be “connected” to a material body?

Completely wrong. Descartes proposed a very fancy and complicated psychology for the nature of the soul and how it converts non-physical thoughts into physical actions. (See above.)

Lipton seems to be making this up. And why the hell is he even talking about Descartes anyway, for god’s sake? The problem of how the mind influences the body arises for anyone who rejects the idea that the mind arises from the brain, and assumes it is separate.

Scientists spent very many centuries looking for parts of the brain that are sensitive to the influence of the soul: from Galenic/Arabic thinkers who thought the soul resides in the brain’s ventricles, to modern neuroscientists like John Eccles, who thought it was the cerebrum.

If Lipton wants to reject dualism, he’d be better off picking a more recent proponent than Descartes.

But does this horribly confused lunatic even intend to reject dualism? He seems to be advocating it, and arguing that two separate entities — mind and matter — are tangled up with each other.

We’ll have to take another run at that sentence.

Because he couldn’t identify the nature of the mind…

Lipton forgets that he also can’t identify the nature of the mind. Or, rather assumes or implies that he has the answer, and that his answer evades the inevitable dualist conundrum.

Lipton as we just saw, thinks the mind “is energy”, and thinks that this statement not only means something, but means something that is somehow “implied” by quantum physics.

I think that for Lipton’s readers, the term “energy” is a bit like the term “God” for Christians. It means whatever you want it to mean, and as long as we just stick to using the word without saying what we actually mean by it, all will be well. But that is not science.

Descartes left behind an irresolvable philosophical conundrum…

It is only irreconcilable if you assume that mind is independent of the body and acts upon it as an external agent.

…since only matter can affect matter, how can an immaterial mind be “connected” to a material body?

Lipton’s mistake here is that he implies that modern science does not accept that “energy” can affect matter. And that science therefore rejects the idea that “mind” (which Lipton thinks “is energy”) can affect the matter of the body.

The reason for biologists making this supposed error, is because they supposedly reject quantum physics, which would have told them that mind/energy are ENTANGLED with matter/body.

As he said at the end of the previous chapter, he is prepared to drag biologists “kicking and screaming” into the new quantum era. There they will apparently be forced to consult the physics text books and read up on entanglement, and learn that mind and body are ENTANGLED.

There, I have summed up one of the main arguments in this book. {Makes first movement of patting self on back but gives up before hand leaves table.}


  1. Please tell me you’re going to have this published.

  2. I will edit it down into some kind of extended form and figure out how best to make it available. At the very least a downloadable book-like pdf that people can point to any time someone claims Lipton’s work is scientific.

    Thanks for reading and commenting!

    And I recommend your extraordinary writing to everyone who reads here — http://bruisesyoucantouch.com/

  3. Great stuff, Yakaru – just one correction – you wrote “Now Lipton thinks that mind and acceleration are the same things,” instead of energy.

    It would surely be hard to be more confused than Lipton is on just about every aspect of science and medicine. He’s just morphed a specific and rare phenomenon of particles’ entanglement into a new description of the ubiquitous relationship between matter and energy. It’s like his metaphorical way of thinking again – “entangled” would be a good colloquial expression for the energy-matter relationship, but he’s using it to blur the difference between the two issues. Like he does with everything. I suppose Mind = Body*c^2, although I’m not sure what the SI Unit of mind is.

    Byrne is doing the same sloppy thinking with Love = Gravity. Things that draw things together, yeah, they must be the same thing. And God must be an enormous black hole where all the bodies get squished into Mind-Singularity.

  4. Er, you are publishing it, here.

  5. Thanks for pointing out the error with energy/acceleration. I’ve fixed it. (I was going to write something else but fell asleep or something.)

    I am starting to get a bit more of a handle on some of the tricks he is playing, so I might be able to write some of this up in a shorter form at some point. But we’ve not even half way through the book yet.

Comments welcome, but please try to address the issues raised in the article!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: